APP calls for submissions for Population and Immigration policy

To protect the Australian way of life, to ensure the survival of our people, and to save our land from the ravages of over-population, we must develop a sensible immigration programme that is geared to the needs of our unique continent.

To solve the problem of over-population caused by immigration, we need to implement a zero-net immigration policy. That is, a policy that would operate on a “one in, one out” basis. This would enable a moderate amount of immigration to occur, whilst at the same time ensuring that our population level will not be increased by the immigration programme.

We recognize that if we are to live in Australia on an ecologically sustainable basis that the level of our population does not need to be increased further. The “environmental footprint” of our population should be properly assessed before any more long-term damage is caused to our country’s fragile environment by the heavy impact of over-population.

We recognize that a population’s impact upon the environment is caused not just from the water they drink, the food they consume, the roads they drive on, or the products they buy – an enormous environmental impact is necessarily caused by the very creation of all the consumables that those people use, whether this occurs on farms, in factories, or in shops.

The damage that all these impacts have upon our environment will grow as our population grows; the long-term consequences of such negative impacts will have enormous ramifications for generations to come, more so unless we act now to ensure our country’s future and reduce immigration in order to reduce environmental damage.

We recognize that the problems caused by the effects of immigration-driven over-population include urban over-crowding (on the roads, in trains, buses, etc.), higher house prices and rent costs, increased pollution (from increased numbers of cars, trucks, factories, etc.), crowded housing (high-rise housing and dual occupancy blocks becoming the norm), an overloading of the public housing system (with many Australians being pushed further down the housing queue), massive urban sprawl (cities getting bigger and bigger, spreading out over previously viable farm land), and increasing water shortages (too many people, not enough water).

Unless the high rate of immigration into Australia is solved, this situation can only get worse. To ensure a decent standard of living for Australians, we must reduce immigration.

We recognize that the skills shortages in the working population is due to past inaction on the part of governments who have placed a higher emphasis upon immigration than they have upon training Australians – resulting in poor employment prospects for many Australians, whilst at the same time creating a “brain drain” of skills and knowledge from Third World countries, being those countries which are in need of trained people most of all.

We also recognize that many “skilled” Third World migrants do not match the level of skills and accomplishments held by those who have trained in Australia, often creating sub-standard work and undermining the reputation of companies for quality production.

The problem of skills shortages should be rectified by increasing training solutions for Australians, rather than looking to short-term solutions like skilled migration programmes. We must look ahead to the long-term future of Australia.

We recognize that there are areas in the national economy that require labour for seasonal periods. To minimize any need for the importation of foreign labour, we should seek solutions by considering other possibilities, whether it may be favourable tax concessions or tax-free status or threshold-free status for people willing to take on such employment opportunities (such as for students, backpacker tourists, or local travelers who follow seasonal work). An additional benefit in these circumstances would be that the money would be spent in Australia, rather than much of it going overseas.

A sensible immigration programme should seek to enable the national community to live in harmony, free from the ethnic and racial strife caused by social-engineering experiments.

A sensible immigration programme should seek to benefit the national community, rather than to benefit the ideologies of political multiculturalists.

We recognize that if we wish to preserve our way of life then our national interests are best served by limiting immigration to First World countries.

We recognize that continuing high levels of immigration from Third World and Muslim populations will very likely bring cultural and demographic changes that will have a severe impact upon the future of our nation, threatening the social fabric and our community’s way of life for future generations.

To avoid the long-term damage of social unrest and ongoing ethnic tensions and hatreds that are the result of ill-conceived migration policies, Australia needs to have a sensible immigration programme of only accepting into our country those people who will readily fit into our society, primarily from traditional sources such as the United Kingdom, Ireland, continental Europe, and from similar populations such as from Canada, South Africa, and the United States of America.

It simply does not make sense to encourage or favour the immigration of people who will not readily fit into our society versus those who will readily fit into our society, unless one has a social-political agenda opposed to the well-being of a predominantly homogeneous Australia.

It makes logical sense to limit immigration to those populations which have the best chance of fitting in easily with our way of life, therefore avoiding unnecessary social conflicts and the resulting community unrest.

To aid assimilation into the national community, all immigrants should have a working knowledge of English before they migrate to Australia. Every endeavour should be made to encourage immigrants to fit into the Australian community, including provision of advanced English classes and access to community groups.

Many migrants may legitimately wish to hold on to various traditions of their homelands; however, holding on to them all, including the maintaining of old ethnic hatreds and national rivalries, will create divisions between old and new Australians. These divisions should be minimised by the discontinuing of government funding for multiculturalism, an outdated and obviously flawed political ideology which encourages migrants to keep themselves separate from the wider Australian population.

We recognize that the encouraging of immigration of thousands of poorly educated people from war-torn Third World countries will necessarily involve bringing in significant numbers of those who are war-traumatized, psychologically damaged, and even predisposed towards violence; and that such immigration will unavoidably involve an increase in assaults, including sexual assaults and murder, against Australians.

It is considered necessary that, in these circumstances, it is better that such people, if determined to migrate, should seek residence in countries that are nearby to their own, with people of similar ethnicity and compatible culture. To do otherwise would create unthinkable and unnecessary personal hardships for the many individual Australians that will invariably suffer assaults from such people.

Faced with the choice of lower crime rates or higher crime rates, where we should consider each additional crime as being not one of “statistics” or “numbers” but as affecting real individuals and their families, we must choose on the side of protecting the lives of Australians.

The Department of Immigration should be responsible for all immigration procedures, as privatization in this field is not appropriate. Therefore, it is necessary to rescind all licenses for private individuals and organizations to act agents for the Department of Immigration. Likewise, it is intended to limit the influence of big and small businesses to affect immigration numbers, quotas or preferred level of skills. Immigration and population policies are a national concern and therefore privatization of immigration functions should not be entered into.

If we desire to help refugees, then they should be assisted in their own regions, in countries where they are more likely to fit in culturally and ethnically. The money spent on assisting ten refugees here could assist hundreds of refugees in Third World situations.

The current practice of many foreign students using their studies in Australia as a way to enable an underhand avenue of migration into Australia must cease. The purpose of educating any foreign students should be to enable them to return to their countries of origin and use their new-found knowledge and skills to bolster the standard of living of their own people, not to acquire a backdoor migration pass into Australia.

In any event, Australia must look towards first educating our own students and giving them as many educational opportunities as we reasonably can, before we even begin to give foreign students access to our educational facilities.

Australian universities and other places of learning are places of enormous infrastructure value that were funded by the hard work of Australian taxpayers over many generations for the purpose of educating Australians – and this should continue to be their primary role.

To protect the Australian way of life we must take the matter of migration very seriously, as any mistakes made will impact upon our nation for generations to come.

Past Liberal and Labor governments have been making immigration mistakes for decades; it is high time that Australians have a party to look after and protect their interests, not the interests of multiculturalist politicians, leftist lecturers, and migration lobby groups.

It is time that Australians have a party willing to look after and protect Australia – and the Australian Protectionist Party is here to fulfill that role.

The APP wishes to extend an invitation to those who feel strongly about Australia’s current population and immigration policies, to contribute any constructive criticisms or comments for due consideration. We invite lobby groups, government bodies, and members of the public for their input.

Comments

What about this conundrum?
Australia has been wealthy for a number of years largely based on it minerals and the mining boom. However, did you realise that the majority of the deposits were found by geologists not from Oz, but from other countries such as the UK, Canada and France. Most came on 457 visas and if they were not allowed in because of a 1 in 1 out, then the industry would not have grown to what it is and would not have generated the wealth that it now enjoys. The small amount of geologists from the UK, such as myself have found the deposits that now employ thousands of Australians. Do you not want the benefits of mining?

People have known for years that you can draw a line from Ballarat to Kalgoorlie and find gold anywhere along it. They have also known about the resources out there oil nickel etc. We had a mining boom in the 1970s and we didnt have 457 visas. Also we have had hundreds of geologists graduate from our universities for the past 50 years. I know 2 friends from school and back in the 1990s they found it tough to get a job. What your saying is that unless we imported foreign geologists we wouldnt have got the resources out of the ground as quickly to ship to china to value add. Aside from the people directly employed in mining enjoying good wages ( which the employment has now dried up) ordinary aussies like me have not experienced any real change other than more people using more of our services and infrastructure (which has not kept up).

What buggers me is how an African immigrant acrobat as seen on the news last week, who is HIV positive, can infect hundreds of people here in Australia? After all, hasn't both Liberal and Labor informed the public that these invaders are screened for diseases? The only joy I had at hearing that was those left winged bitches are now s***ting themselves wondering if their black stud has murdered them. Ha bloody ha, serves them right for encouraging them over here and then r**ting the immigrant scum invaders. I also heard from one of them who worked at my place that all the white refugee advocates like having sex with the refugees. Most of these women, like so many of the far left are of course so bloody ugly (where the evil etches inside itself on the outside) that the immigrants are of course their only choice.

What I cannot understand is how do we allow into this country people who are caring for our most vulnerable, and that these people have little or no "cultural connection" with these people.

For example; Our elderly are being cared for, in nursing homes by predominently Indians.

Another case I note the number of Indian trained Medical graduates being allowed to practice here and given preferential treatment over local graduates. Why is this happening?? quite frankly, the standards of care are not good enough.

These people caring for our elderly have no care involved. Consistently I am left to clean up the mess. They have failed to show these people not only the dignity and respect they deserve, for firstly fighting the second world war but secondly if it wasn't for these people, who sweated and built this country so that it was "free" for all people who wanted to come here and live in peace. In short, without our elderly people who are now in nursing homes, these people would not have been allowed to come here for a holiday, let alone live and work here.

Another case I find particulary disturbing is the case of young local medical graduate who is working in Psychiatry at Frankston Hospital. Who is being bullied out of her chosen profession simply because the "Indian" graduates do not want them there. Having worked and studied very hard to get where they are today it looks like this person will not get to even enter the training program with The Royal AUSTRALIAN and New Zealand College of Psychiatry. Because of the torment of a constant barrage of abuse by them. This person was placed in Psychiatry to gain the necessary experience to join the above mentioned program. This person has had to learn from mistakes, due to thier lack of experience, and the fact that the Indian grads, who are meant to train them, because of thier vastly superior experience and training, failed to do so. They have deliberately left them misinformed and ill prepared due to the fact they(the Indian grads) do not and have no intention of training this person.

Another AUSTRALIAN trained doctor, from the same department and hospital, wound up in emergency and had to abandon what seemed like was going to be a fruitful career. This person had been on the college training program for 2 years. Why did this person abandon his chosen career? Was this bullying?? Was that the reason why they left?

I end this with a simple question.

If it was your brother or sister suffering from a mental health condition. Who would you rather them be looked after? A fellow Aussie, regardless of racial background. Or some bloody Indian? who probably went to med school on the back of a bloody elephant.

I think it is time we drew a line in the sand. All of this needs to come out.

As Aussies, we all stand for two basic principles.

1. A fair go.

2. Help a mate.

When you look at this neither of these two principles are being met. How can these young aussies, regardless of racial background, get a fair go? when they are not being helped by the very people that are supposed to be looking after them, ie teaching and training them. The second principle needs no real explanation. In my opinion it is a clear case of RACIAL DISCRIMINATION!!!! that is against the poor bloody young aussies who just so happen to want to be a bloody Psychiatrist.

Wouldn't you think that these people above all else would or ought to know better? Are they not charged with caring for people who are already "vulnerable"? Time will tell.

If they are guilty of this, How can we trust them to diagnose young aussies? Have they been exposed to racial hatred too?

Let me just say I am a very proud aussie. I don't care what your or anyone elses background is. We are all Australian. The tax payer has funded this training. The taxpayer has the right to say "no more".

I will defend this country and all of its people to the death, if it should be so necessary.

I don't care if your chinese, indian, from africa, or Britain. This entire situation is UNAUSTRALIAN.

1. OK, I will ask the fellow if he is OK to make it loud. If he gives me a go ahead – i will.

2. On another topic- Geert Wilders is a biggest winner in Dutch elections! His party PVV increased seats from 9 to 24 at least and he is the kingmaker of Dutch Parliament now!!!!!! Alleluiah! The world is waking up! This is the prove that APP CAN WIN.

Tell him I said spill his guts. Use whatever "colourful" language he likes. He aint gonna hurt my feelings, lol.

This is what I mean by people being lazy, too bloody scared they are gonna upset the do-gooders. Get labelled a racist or something.

He could try the "legal" way and go thru the "Equal Opportunity Commission" but if he is white/euro background then the ** ** lefties that sit around drinking f***ing herbal tea all day, duck out side for a quick fag, then a ciggie, are only gonna laugh the poor bastard out of the building.

Was he positive when he entered the country? There are different 'standards' for tests in different countries. I suppose you haven't heard of AIDS dissidents, but the HIV=AIDS hyposthesis has never actually been proven. This man is potentially going to jail for a 'crime' that may not even exist.

Are you kidding? HIV doesn't lead to AIDS? What planet are you living on? That assumption was taken up by a former president of South Africa, Tabo Embeke, and it has led to hundreds of needless deaths. Do you want the same thing happening here?

It's so comforting to hear you swallow whatever your told by your social superiors. We now live in a globalised, multiculturalised, thought-crime-legislated society thanks to people like you.

Now do you want a carbon tax to stop 'manmade global warming', ban intelligent design, and jail holocaust revisionists? Good, because we wouldn't anyone to ever question the authorities about anything.

The time is now upon us that we all must make a stand. The time is now upon us that we must look forward and walk together hand in hand. We must make decisions for our children’s children. We must ensure the safety and security for all Australians.

We must tend our own garden. Removing the waste and put things in order. We must do this today.

We must do it in a way that protects all that we hold true and dear.

We must believe in the principles of a “fair go”, and “help a mate”.

Our country has become fat and lazy. Fat through the inaction of its people and its government. We have failed to act. We seek always to be politically correct so that the world does not condemn us. We fear persecution by the others in this world. We care more about our global image than we do for our own citizens. Our citizens are very quickly becoming second class, in their own country, which is supposed to care and nurture for its own.

Aussies are being driven out of their own chosen careers, communities and country. Universities offer preferential treatment of overseas applicants and students. Often at the expense of our own children.

We live in a society which is very quickly becoming overrun. What would our forefathers make of this land? Are we all going to be forced into submission? Are we all going to just simply lay down and allow all the talk of equality, to do what it was set up to do? That is, simply push all Australians to live on the fringe of a society which their forefathers built? Our citizens are being discriminated against by the very government policy which is meant to make things equal.

Government departments persecute and condemn anyone who is outspoken. Sadly we live in a country which is no longer free. Our very existence was owed to the fact that this country was a penal colony. Settled by the English.

Current policy by government at all levels means that no matter where we travel, we will find that in some parts of this great country we will feel like we are not even in Australia. Street signs not in English, certain public amenities out of use for them at certain times, due to the religious beliefs of a minority group in this country. Separate schools reinforcing these ideals, paid for and set up by government, which are not open to all.

This must stop and it must be stopped now.

If this country is to be free, truly free then this government led bias or exclusion must be stopped. All Australians must act to stop it.

There are a group in this country at the moment that are not only disillusioned and dissociated by current government policy, but they are completely isolated by these policies.

This group is SLIMS. Single Low Income Males. History tells us if we ignore this group then it will lead to the destruction and disintegration of our society. The last time this happened, it happened in the early 1930’s and lead to the rise of Adolf Hitler and the NAZI party. We all know what happened.

Are we simply going to sit by while our youth become more frightened and vulnerable? More disenchanted and disillusioned? Are we going to wait until the new fuehrer organises his policies and ideals? Perhaps until he forms the new SS? From what I have seen of this country we will wait until it is too late. Too late to stop. Unless we fail to act today.

I can foresee a terrible war being fought right here in our society, in our communities, in our very own backyards, the ethnic cleansing of recent years in the Balkans will look like a family fun day, compared to the fears I have of such a war. We live in a multicultural society, as such it will splinter and disintegrate in such a way that it will never reform. The danger is very real. Suppressed, but none-the-less very real.

Look at the way is which people flocked to Pauline Hanson and the “One Nation” party of the 1990’s.

Political fracturisation. Destruction of political ideals. She was openly condemned and persecuted. She was in fact the only political figurehead in this countries’ history to obtain more than 20% of the primary vote a federal election. In fact the first time we had seen Liberal and Labour give preferences to each other.

If she had wanted she could have invoked public unrest and violence. Completely destabilised this society and shocked it to the core. Her and her party let the people speak. I honour her and the party for that.

To be realistic, I can’t say what the future will bring, but if you can’t see the potential that we are breeding, then how blind you really are…

I fear this country, that I love so dearly for its entire people, will be become a fractured splintered state in which the worst of humanity will be on display. In the ashes of this aftermath there will be very little of what I love about this country. There will be little of what our forefathers built.

This countries freedoms, culture and values are being destroyed by the very people who are meant to represent and defend it.

Imagine a country in which the army stand at checkpoints, identity tags or cards that must be displayed before boarding a train, entering a shopping centre. Imagine having to cross thirty of these checkpoints to visit your mother? Imagine being refused entry as your travel pass is no longer valid. Imagine being interrogated and questioned about visiting your sick or dying relative? ” What is the purpose of your visit to North Melbourne today?” or “You live in Northcote? Do you not? Are you or what allegiance do you have to the Australian Freedom Movement?”, even perhaps; “They are very active in this region? Yes?” and “You live in this area? Yes? You must be a member then? No?”. I will go further here and say “If you are not, then if you want to visit your relative who is dying? Then you will give me the names and address’es of three people who are involved in this movement, before you are allowed to enter North Melbourne”.

The above mentioned is all fictitious. But you can appreciate this has and does happen in the world today. Just imagine it was here in Australia. Would you give the person interrogating you three names? The simple truth is that people answer “no” that they wouldn’t, but in reality and out of fear they do the exact opposite. Is this the kind of country we want our children to live in?

It could be a very real situation. That is why we must act now to stop it from happening.

I'd like to see a return to the White Australia Policies. When ever I mention this is other forums people always jump up and shout Racist etc etc. And the very few who will enter into conversation come out and say "What’s your solution? Kill them all like Nazi's killed Jews". I find it strange that those who oppose a white policy only suggest death. Now I might be a racist but I do not hate people based on the colour of skin and I find it appalling that all racists are tared with the same brush. A solution to the growing enclave problem would be to use some of the money that is used to support multiculturalism and redirect it to people who only come to this country for money. Pay them to move away. The cost of Multiculturalism has been one of those question our politicians have failed to answer year after year. No one can put a cost on it because Multiculturalism costs us on so many levels. From special education programs to needed infrastructure, Health and many other areas.

The problem with selling a White Australia policy is the word 'white'.

People always chime in with 'Well, aren't Aborigines Australian?'.

They think 'White' was only ever a reference to race, rather than a holistic race/culture concept.

Forget the word 'white', use the label 'cultural' instead. Emphasise the unrelated histories of the world's civilisations.

Don't talk of ethnic nationalism either. Most people think 'ethnic' just means 'wogs'.

The term 'cultural nationalism' is a concept half way between ethnic and civic nationalism, and is probably the most accurate to describe Australia.

Emphasise that those currently here can remain 'civic' Australians, but we won't accept any more people who are contra-ethnic (ethnicities incompatible with ours). We have the right to a cultural contiuum with the past (not just Australia's, but the whole Western Civilisational history).

Yes, eliminate public funding of the multi-industry, but please don't do a BNP and offer money-to-go. Starving the multi-industry of funds should be sufficient. Without that, people will either assimilate or leave voluntarily (one quarter do leave, so why waste money on people who would have left anyway?!)

Just a question more than anything. Can someone please define what 'the Australian way of life is' please be as specific as possible.

Secondly, who are 'our people'? I only ask as I am trying to work out whether I fit the categories, once again specifics would be great, blonde hair, blue eyes, etc.

Thirdly, where do notions of Aboriginality fit into this discussion about the protection of Australia. I guess we can all agree that Aboriginal people were here before the British, and so logically by extention that the APP extends their protection to protecting the rights and sovereignty of the Aboriginal people as a nation.

Finally, as it is my specific area of interest, if I was to design your backyard, what would you want in it and how could you truly represent Australia. Further, if you could redesign Canberra to truly represent our nation how would you do it.

Where do points 2 and 6 diverge. I think it is a very fine line to tread between freedom of speech and trying to silence some religious groups you may or may not agree with.

Point 3 and 6 seem to conflict a little also. Equal treatment of religions…but not that much?

Speaking from personal experience I have never felt any pressure to become a Muslim. The only pressure I have felt has come from Christian groups either knocking on my door, or approaching me in the street.

I guess the main thing you specifically exclude is the Indigenous issue and it is the one that is most troubling for me. Believe me, as a home owner, I would not willingly give up my home for anyone claiming ownership of it. But the reality is, that is never going to happen. All people talk about when they talk about self determination or autonomy is the recognition of something that comes before Australia. For the Aboriginal peoples of Australia this is especially pertinent due to the way in which Australia was possessed. I am not for a second supporting any politics of guilt, as guilt, as has been said before, is a very un-constructive emotion. What I would be suggesting is for Aboriginal people to officially identify firstly with their ancestral ties, wherever they may be, and if they feel it appropriate, and then, in addition, having the option of identifying as Australian, with all the benefits that come along with it.

If that makes people happy then I don't for a second see how it undermines any notion of an 'Australian way of life'. I feel it gives the nation of Australia the potential for a cultural depth that it has so far not recognised. It could even enhance the way of life for those people who themselves identify as Australian.

Point 4 is where I absolutely agree. If the APP were to begin suggesting policies like the banning of live exports, battery hens and sow stalls, I would be there in an instant.

I reject any attempt to define the Australian way of life as it only leads to a muddle of ideas and values. As a true blue Aussie I carry Australia in my soul and have no need to define it in some abstract academic sense. If someone feels the need to define what an Aussie is, then that person ISN'T an Australian and they should move forthwith to a country where they feel most comfortable.

I agree wholeheartedly, but I would add to your point. There is absolutely no need to define what an Australian way of life is, primarily because there is no such thing.

I feel very comfortable here in Australia. It seems many other people in this discussion are more uncomfortable with the Australia we all inhabit than I am.

I feel very comfortable being served by the Chinese woman in the convenience store near my house, and I feel very comfortable being served by the Indian man in the servo, I feel great going downstairs and getting a pizza from the Italian man in the Pizza shop. My favourite food is Thai, I love a Kebab, and my phone is a Nokia.

My main point is this, Australia is not 'predominantly homogeneous', it is diverse. It is impossible to define an Australian way of life, because Australians come from just about every planet on the globe and live individual and free lives.

To put statements like 'such immigration will unavoidably involve an increase in assaults, including sexual assaults and murder, against Australians' is promoting racial vilification and hatred. Put simply, it is a lie. I suggest it is a dangerous position for the APP to take without some solid evidence to back them up.

But back to your point Guardian. It was merely a way of trying to understand what the APP are asking for in this submission. My initial question responded to the first two points of the article. I was just a little concerned, because surely the APP would need to formulate definitions of 'way of life' and 'our people' if policy is going to formed around those ideas?

What are you talking about? Of course there is an Australian way of life. It is the life of people like me, Anglo-Celtic and Christian. Anyone else here is just a foreigner.

Also, you refer to a Chinese here, an Indian there and then say that you feel comfortable. No doubt. But how would you feel if your suburb was overrun by Chinese? I can tell you because it happened to me – my suburb was overrun by Chinese and I felt alienated, like a foreigner in my own country. After that experience I lost my tolerance for foreigners. They should either assimilate or go home. Preferably the latter.

Also, regarding the APP's linking of immigration and sexual asaults, they were no doubt thinking of this: http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/12/immigrant-ra…
Check it out. It shows the unpleasant consequences of Third world immigration from Muslim countries.

I didn't say HIV isn't connected to AIDS. I said CAUSATION has not been proven, and how could it? "AIDS" is not *a* disease, but a list of 30 odd diseases, all of which have existed for centuries and have their own causative agents. Have YOU had a test? How do you know you don't have HIV? It apparently does nothing for a decade or so before symptoms appear. A decade or so of heavy drug use would also severely undermine one's health and that's exactly what happened in the 1970s gay scene: drugs, drugs, drugs.

No wonder "Inquisitive" is confused. First you claim a majoritarian stance on culture. Now you're an absolutist ('Anyone not Anglo-Celtic and Christian is just a foreigner'). *Most* Australians are Anglo-Celtic Christians. They don't *all* have to be. If someone loses their faith in Jesus, suddenly they're a 'foreigner'?

A free society precludes absolute 100% conformity on any factor.

The problem with multicultural immigration is not that people are different. It's that these differences are IMPOSED on us, without our consent. The immigrants have a choice, we don't.

"There is absolutely no need to define what an Australian way of life is, primarily because there is no such thing."

Oh, the old we don't even HAVE a culture trick. Our 'way of life' is whatever way *most* Native Australians live.

Do Australians not have particular folkways or are they catatonic vegetables who sit drooling in the corner or universalist world citizens who magically appeared out of a historical vacuum?

You acknowledge Aborigines have their own folkways and I'm sure you'd say the same for any other non-Anglosphere ethnic group.

The reason you think we don't have a culture/way of life is because you've been immersed in it all your life.

The fish doesn't see the ocean it swims in.

If you recognise the ways of other people as '*not* our way' then there must logically be an 'our way', yes? Even if it's difficult to define precisely.

You "feel very comfortable being served" by poor coloured people on $9 an hour, so you don't get your manicure ruined. Coloured immigrants doing the dirty work for rich white people? How noble and altruistic of you!

"I feel very comfortable being served by the Indian man in the servo"

And ONLY Indian men. Have you noticed the blatant bias in service station recruitment lately? There should be a senate inquiry.

"My main point is this, Australia is not ‘predominantly homogeneous’,"

No, that's precisely what it is, and what almost every other nation on Earth is.

That doesn't mean *every* person is some cookie cutter clone of the next bloke. All peoples have internal variants, but within an overall continuity.

"it is diverse."

66% Skippy.

"Australians come from just about every planet on the globe"

Every planet on the globe?

But predominantly Anglo-Celtic. Civic 'Australians' are not ethnic 'Australians'. Ethnic Australians only come from one 'planet' on this globe: Australia.

The only people who feign ignorance of what 'Australian' (adjective or noun) means are people who really don't care and are just playing games.

Merging all racial outlays into funding for Australians generally except the re-introduction of a sponsored migration program and cash resettlement grants for aborigines in remote areas to provide the option of urbanisation and participation in the economy and living a modern, western lifestyle;

Opposition to the reception of customary law, re-introduction of separate elected representation, reserved seats in parliament, constitutional recognition and a Bill of Aboriginal Rights, a treaty and sovereign aboriginal states carved out of the Commonwealth of Australia;

Compulsory elementary education in the national language; and

A sunset clause on native title and a freeze on determination of claims with the Federal Court.

· Proposed referendum question:

To approve the changes to the Constitution proposed in the Constitution Amendment (National Language, Holiday and Flag) Constitutional Amendment Bill, to declare English to be the national language, 26 January in each year to be Australia Day and a certain flag to be the Australian National Flag.

An Act to amend the Constitution to declare English to be the national language, 26 January in each year to be Australia Day and a certain flag to be the Australian National Flag.

1. The short title of this Act is the National Language, Holiday and Flag Act

2. The Constitution is amended by the insertion of section 127, 127A and 127B as set out below:

Section 127 – Status of English Language

English is the national language of Australia.

Section 127A – National Holiday

26 January in each year shall be Australia Day, being the anniversary of the arrival of the First Fleet in 1788.

Section 127B – Australian National Flag

A blue flag with the Union Jack occupying the upper hoist, a large white Commonwealth Star in the centre of the lower hoist and 5 white stars representing the Southern Cross constellation in the fly half.

Your referendum will fail, particularly if all those matters are listed as one. There is no need for this.

You contradict yourself regarding Aborigines, demading assimilation then offering special rights. Why assimilate if they live in their own sovereign state?

There should be no recognition of lost sovereignty (Does Italy, home of the Romans, still own England?).

Another ATSIC? Pur-lease!

This is a liberal society. Nobody should be forced to live any particular way, immigrants and Aborigines included. If their choices (spearing, honor killings) result in criminal violation, they should be punished the way any other person would.

Demanding assimilation from Aborigines is like White Australians expected to adapt to the ways of immigrants. Nobody has the right to impose their culture on anyone else.

We must accept the presence of Aborigines. We don't have to accept the presence of any ethnic group that arrived after British colonisation. Those immigrants arrived in an established civilisation. If certain ehtnic groups are incompatible with it, they should not be admitted; instead of letting them in and then telling them to change!

If you re-read again slowly you'll see that I think radical aboriginal rights activists are very demanding people and that I have no time for them.

I think you will find that modern aboriginal people have generally approved of the changes

that have occured since British settlement by marrying the heirs and successors of the colonial population and more recent arrivals

and their progeny and integrating in large numbers.

The proportion of aboriginal adults married (de facto or de jure) to non-aboriginal spouses was 69% according to the 2001 census, up from 64% in

1996, 51% in 1991 and 46% in 1986. The census figures show there were more intermixed aboriginal couples in capital cities: 87% in 2001 compared to 60% in rural and regional Australia.

When Captain Phillip stepped ashore at Sydney Cove, most authorities place the aboriginal population of Australia at between 250,000-300,000. The last accurate census on the number of full blooded aborigines was in 1961; today the number may be no more than 30,000 out of

a total "indigenous" population of 517,200.

In 1996 the census showed almost 72% of aborigines practiced some form of Christianity. Further data on aboriginal assimilation was recorded in the 2006 census, which showed 31% of aborigines lived in major cities and

another 45% in or close to rural towns, a major increase compared with 46% living in urban areas in 1971. There was been a move away from communal type living with one in three aborigines owining their own homes. Aboriginal languages, of which there are several

hundred (many extinct or nearly so), are spoken by 12% of the Aboriginal population (aged 5 years and over), of whom 78% are also proficient English speakers.

Based on current trends, it is more likely than not that the dysgenic traits carried by aboriginal people and nature will decide these matters in the fullness of time.

None of these truths are likely to have any impact on the plans of self appointed aboriginal leaders and their white sympathisers, or even be heard. The declaration of a republic could place Australia on a slippery slope that leads to these retrograde steps. However, the fact that turnout for elections to the former Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission was typically around 20% of eligible voters, and that there is no national non-funded aboriginal voice, points to there being no such thing as a collective aboriginal identity and suggests the artificial nature of the separatist agenda, and it would seem these fantasies are and will not be supported by most common aboriginal people themselves.

All that remains for radical aboriginal rights activists to do is to reconcile themselves with the fact their future lies not in statements of

separatness but as an ethnic minority with equal citizenship subject to one law in a united Australian Federation.

Your estimate of the successfullness of my proposed amendment and mine will differ. I think you might find there will be less argument than you think.

For example, that "English is the national language of Australia" is only an entirely accurate statement of fact.

You have no time for aboriginal activists' demands? Oh, I'm sorry. I was confused by this: "separate elected representation, reserved seats in parliament, constitutional recognition and a Bill of Aboriginal Rights, a treaty and sovereign aboriginal states carved out of the Commonwealth of Australia".

Yes, we wouldn't want to encourage their extremism, would we now?

I agree, most Aborigines are assimilated, so what with the above list? Completely unnecessary, as is your referendum(s).

"That 'English is the national language of Australia' is only an entirely accurate statement of fact." And therefore no need to enshrine in the Constitution.

There is quite a bit a variant opinion regarding the flag though.

Things like flags, language and so on do not need to be imbedded in the constitution. They are not fundamental to the functionality of government, which is what the constitution is about.

Most Australians asked about your well-duh proposals will probably scratch the heads and wonder 'Why bother?'

Read it again? Why bother. You're one of those 'I know everything' types that I and many other people are sick to death of. There is no need for any of your Aboriginal policies or referendums. The last thing Australia needs is more bureacratic blah-blah.

Anyway, with all those friendly neighbours in one place, it wouldn't be long before they're all killing each other. We block the exits and wait for the fires to stop burning. We could rename Perth "Phoenix", rising from the ashes.

Take the 1960's. In 1968 we had a population of around 12 million. Under the Liberal Government at the time, the Australian dollar was worth $ 1.25, and there was no such thing as GST.

Homes were in good supply and inexpensive as were rental properties,and there were jobs for everyone who wanted one. There was no real waiting time for hospitals and emergency services were all first class. The trains and buses were uncrowded and ran on time, and you could drive right across Sydney without any real traffic in no time. at all., and there were no tolls except for the Harbour Bridge.The beaches and other public facilities were also uncrowded, and water was not even an issue in the big cities.

The crime rates were very low, people even in the Western Suburbs did not even lock their doors, and now the idiotic concept of multiculture has filled our cities with the most viscous criminals from the third world, The violent crime and drugs as are seen today were almost unknown, but the third world criminals , crimes, incarceration, and welfare cost the taxpayers staggering amounts of money. Back in the 60's, good schools and unis were much easier to get in to, and the only homeless people were those who chose the lifestyle. Our once prevalent suburban tennis courts and bowling greens are now sealed in concrete, as are the many once green grass house lawns, and the vacant lots that the kids used to play in, all gone to make way for high rise apartments..

The argument that a nation-building government would be bold enough to choose a bigger Australia. has absolutely no merit at all, because as we can see today all what was good about Australia in 1968 are not good today,especially in our third world cities, where much of our heritage and quality of life has gone forever, and yet our population has doubled, which proves conclusively that more is NOT better. A slow controlled immigration policy as we had post war would ensure the oldies would be taken care of in their old age.

I think if they found they were worse off when they had been here a while, Shockadelic, they would return whence they came. I've known immigrants from poorer countries who seem to live privileged lives, with maids and comfortable homes. But the public goods, like health care, education, clean water, reliable energy supply, together with the relative peace and, as yet, low levels of corruption, make Australia worth a few sacrifices, including their places in the pecking order.

Of course, these same beneficiaries don't mind abusing and undermining the system that is so attractive to them.

The way to keep them out is to stop supply places for potential immigrants.

About a quarter of them do return. But the ones who most want to, the economically disappointed, probably can't afford it. So they stay and have miserable babies who also don't return, but form gangs and rape white girls.

We can't remove non-European 'Australians', but we could encourage them to relocate to a particular location. I'm thinking Western Australia (the gov wants them to work in the mining industry).

WA has a population about half the size of the non-Euro population. Incentives could be offered to non-Euros to relocate, like cheaper loans for non-Euros in WA, or lower welfare payments in other states. The gov can do this under the race power clause of the constitution.

As the non-Euros start moving to WA, the usual white flight will occur. They move in, we move out. If the program is so successful WA is filled to capacity, the program could be extended to South Australia and Northern Territory. To qualify, people would simply have to show that they or their ancestors originally came from a non-European country.

Also, higher tax threshold for non-Euros living in WA, and lower business taxes for WA businesses with at least 50% non-Euro employees. Make it look like we're being generous and they'll bite the bait.

It sounds like the Brisbane Line from WWII. But is it a good idea to hand over the mining resources to the swarthy hordes, even if they don't see through your diabolical scheme, Moriarty Shockadelic? Besides, if such wickedness is possible, could we not simply get some Indonesian people smugglers to take them back whence they come?

Untie the hands of the military. Let them defend our borders and fund them correctly and adequately.

Yes we would be condemned in the eyes of the world but it would very quickly and abruptly stop this problem.

Blow a couple of boats out of the water, leaving no survivors, as this would only create more problems. For the "do-gooders" of this forum and the world our government could simply issue a "global" warning. Hence these people couldn't say that they didn't know and it would cover the legal requirements of international law.

The warning could read something like this;

"The Australian government hereby warns all people entering Australian territory or it's territorial waters and any area in which Australia deems necessary to its defence, illegally, that is without the express permission of its government are hereby warned that Australian Government policy has changed to a "shoot on sight" policy of defence of such mentioned territory. Australia and its people hereby anounces that it considers such trespassing as an act of terror and as such will not rule out the possibility of a preemptive strike, if deemed so necessary to stop such a trespass onto its soveriegnty."

A population policy must not be designed around the mantra that big is better, nor that a bigger population means a stronger economy. Migrants that bring no capital in skills or wealth or ability, but who bring demands that tear the social fabric, may swell the population; but they will also harm it.

The harbingers of demographic doom ignore the fact that in most European countries the population density is already at saturation levels, with up to 300 people per square kilometre. This population density similarly applies to Australia, where despite a low density for the continent, the habitable areas are at optimum levels; some are at saturation levels, a truth borne out by falling social cohesion, shortage of housing, rising energy costs, and traffic congestion.

Migrants are forced into countries that become vulnerable because of natural correction of fertility rates. The southern European countries, like Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece, have had unsustainably high fertility rates for several generations, because of Catholic and Orthodox Church influence, and because of wealth flowed from children to parents. Secularisation and a reversal of the wealth flow are due to modernisation, economic prosperity, and a natural response to over-population.

Populations have also risen because of greater longevity and low infant mortality; the people who live longer are also healthier, so able to work longer. Contributions to the workforce in these advanced countries are further enhanced by technology.

These changed conditions coupled with population density make it quite unncessary to bring in migrants from anywhere, particularly from technically and socially backward countries, most of the migrants from which can only perform menial tasks, their jobs often being the result of policies to employ the otherwise unemployable. Those migrants who can perform higher tasks either treat their clients with condescension, or function incompetently, or corruptly, or all three.

If the social engineers would leave well enough alone, the fertility rates would restore themselves spontaneously when natural conditions require it: the baby boom after World war II is an obvious instance of this natural restoration.

Fully support your article on immigration and population. It outlines a sensible basis for a population policy, assuming of course you also subscribe to maintaining a dominant anglo saxon culture here.

I note in the media various government departments exhorting us all the conserve water, save electricity, minimise consumption of energy etc all in the name of sustainable living and preserving the environment. Yet the most obvious approach to limiting environmental degredation is surely to curb demand by putting a limit on population growth , the first step being to critically examine immigration quotas.

Do we really need 290,000 new immigrants every year?

If it takes longer without migrant workers to dig out and export the minerals in this country , so what?

The train I have to catch home stops off at the local tech school, were all the immigrants board. All I hear is Indians jabbering away and African males yelling to each other or on their phones. Today three white guys got on, they were talking about their homestays, they must have been from the country. Pure Aussie voices, I haven't heard the Australian accent for so long, I could've wept. Even in the block of units i am now in, all I hear is Muslims chanting and Indians. Next door to me are Africans who get drunk and play their racist gangster rap (and bash whites who walk past) last night as I lay in bed I could hear taunting from their balcony to someone walking past them; "Hey Whitie! You scared of us? We comming for you!" wonderful, such enrichment I wish on KRUDD and his family

I was down at the eye clinic yesterday getting treatment for my MD (Macular Degeneration). As a Vietnam Veteran, I had my Gold Card ready which sometimes people take notice of as it represents someone who has returned from Active Service, when this jet black African walked in with his mother who was covered head to foot with a sheet. Immediately several recptionists/workers surrounded him and couldn't give enough simpering to help him fill in several forms as of course, he couldn't read or speak much English….he was treated very early, whilst I waited 3 hours. It was then when I realised I was the only one in the clinic that I questioned a nurse as she went by as to what my hold-up was. "Oh dear we seem to have misplaced your file". I eventually got treated after 3 and half hours.

If I had been a black Immigrant (I say that loosely) I would have been in and out under an hour…….so much for Army Vets and their service to this country.

You have my sympathy. Australia is no longer the country my father fought for. When I was a young man I thought of joining the army but couldn't due to a handicap. Now I wouldn't recommend any Aussie joining the army. What would be the point of being blown up in Afghanistan only to have the blighters immigrate here?

Nicely written. I agree with Shockadelic in that a quota should be put on foreign student numbers – though I'm sure if the avenue for them to get a PR were to no longer exist you'd see their numbers nosedive anyway.

It was disturbing that the BNP didn't get one seat in the recent UK elections.

One can only hope that Australians are more attuned to the massive problem of 3rd world people moving into our communities and diluting, if not changing, the face of our communities, our way of life, our culture, religion, language, etc.

Surely when we accept refugees in this country they must not be migrants posing as refugees.

The Afghanis and Sri Lankans for instance will find refuge in a neighbouring country. If those people then move out of the neighbouring country that gave them refuge and then arrived in Australia – they are migrants and then they must meet the visa requirements that all migrants need to achieve.

If a refugee states they came here to improve their lives – they are migrants, not refugees.

Refugees are people seeking refuge – not a better way of life.

I am personally sick of my tax dollars being spent by Krudd and co to house, feed, educate, etc., these imposters.

Does that include Japan, Singapore, Israel? They won't allow us to migrate there. Any migration must be reciprocal, not a one-way street.

I'm not even sure including continental Europe is such a great idea anymore. Look at the problems in the European Union with just the movement of Europeans themselves.

We should stop altogether for at least 10 years to let things settle down into some kind of equilibrium.

Then go back to British-based cultures only during the 21st and 22nd centuries (this would solve the English language problem).

Then (maybe) add contintental Europeans in the 23rd century, then other colonial Europeans (extra maybe) in the 24th century. (By this time most Europeans would know English as a second language).

Then (extra extra maybe) non-European countries that agree to reciprocal migration (500 of them for 500 of us) from the 25th century onwards (if they know English).

In about 7000 years we could offer open borders to the whole world! Yay!

If critics complain this gradualism is racist, it should be pointed out to them that significant numbers of non-Europeans already live in the British and European countries, so would constitute some of the immigrants anyway, as it's based on nationality.

I think zero-growth rather than zero-net would be better. As our population grows, we would take less and less immigrants.

If technological development made the inland deserts liveable, critics would demand more, more, more.

We need to stand up to them and say we will never again have excessive and rapid immigration.

More, more, more = Never, ever, ever.

Foreign students could have a maximum quota of 5% enrolled in any course, and/or in each institution as a whole.

Foreign employees could likewise have a maximum quota of 5% in any company/business.

this site shows what happens to all nations that absorb populations racially foreign to their founding population.

With not a single more non-white immigrant coming in, Australia will become minority White because of the low White birth rate and the very high non-White birth rate. Accepting any non-White immigrants would be near suicide, by the time the Protectionists were in power.

However, it does have to be balanced so as not to appear “too racist” to people. I think a “one-out one pre-1970 immigrant in” policy with would work well.

I wish I could have sued the department of immigration for the horrifying two attacks I have received here in Perth from African gangs, then again…I wish it had been a politician or a nasty self loathing left winger some of whom haunt this website with their usual anti-australian name calling that were on the receiving end. I'm dreading the summer and will have to use the trains to get to work, we have enough racist trouble with Abos fed anti-white policies for decades from the media than to put up with African immigrants also Hell bent on killing us

You don't have to convince me. I know that this is one of the biggest threats facing Australia. We have the highest immigration rate in the world. What "they" want is to make us into battery-caged chickens. We lay the maximum number of eggs with the minimal cost.

I'm fighting this for the sake of my children and grandchildren who will have a much lower standard of living than I have had. Don't listen to the lies that try to convince you that a higher population is of benefit to us all. The facts say otherwise.

Yes you are correct Edward. I did mean to say,“one of the world’s highest…” Australia is a close third after Canada and the USA.

However, it is one thing to correct a mistake and another to attack with such immaturity. The only person who is scared here is YOU because why else would you resort to such low tactical name calling and offensive language to make a simple point.

Are you scared that people might actually wake up and oppose massive immigration and you will lose out on profits or whatever you gain from the system.

You totally contradicted yourself in saying that the USA has the highest rate of migration and then you say "Show me a country with low immigration rates that is doing well". Well is the USA doing well??????

It's not about immigration but population. Why don’t you go live in India and China…they have the highest population so they must be great places to live according to your rational?

How dare you call me a "racist dead beat"! What has controlling population got to do with racism??? I am married to an immigrant and your ignorance is amazing.

Once again you are a complete hypocrite. You call me a racist and yet you use the word "darling" which is a condescending sexist remark. If I had been male, would you have used this term?

My facts may have been wrong, but your attitude is appalling. I can correct my information, but you are stuck with the pathetic person you are. Your attitude totally nullified anything you may have had to contribute to this discussion. I would suggest you keep your opinions to yourself until you GROW UP!

Edward doesn't know the difference between rates and raw figures. You are right. Australia does have the highest RATE of immigration or close to it over a protracted period. Currently, under Krudd, it's close to 1.5 percent per annum. New Zealand's might be higher. Any country with higher influxes from wartorn neighbours, forces them into very basic refugee camps where they die, or escape to somewhere else, like Australia.

Our overseas born population is over 23%, possibly 26%. I don't think this was a problem until Keating decided Australia was part of Asia. Since this monstrous stupidity we have been inundated with third world rabble who do little except force prices up and demand cultural concessions. And add to the crime rate.

Ed, you are absolutely right. Any country benefits from immigration. There is one problem though. Americans benefited from immigration because people coming from other countries WANTED TO BECOME Americans. Nowdays we have majority of entrants who DO NOT want to BECOME Australians. That is why immigration policy must be thoroughly researched, discussed and reviewed.There is no need calling other people racists. I am a migrant myself- I pay taxes and never used social secirity.

euro….the time for discussion is over. Most of us that are over 50 years of age realise the only effective immigration policy is one that dictates to all comers that part of their acceptance into this nation is to assimilate. In other words, to become one of us!

Think of the billions we could save each year on translators, pamplets and other non-english language translations.

I appreciate all the comments posted so far in the sense that we are all entitled to exerciser our right to'freedom of speech', a key policy platform of the APP. However it is important that we begin to base our arguments on a business case scenario or evidence base.

For example,

What do we know about the issue(s)?

-media reponse

-government response

-academic reports

-civil society associations..etc

What do we owe? (i.e. freedom of speech/access to fair and unbiased trial, freedom of movement…etc)

What do we do?

-what progress/solutions/steps can we take to address a problem..etc

-How can we undertake a coordinated approach to our efforts with relevant bodies across our neighborhood/community?

*it is crucially important that programs that are developed to improve community safety for example, are evaluated independently and what works/doesn't work is taking into account over time.

I must emphasize that community safety can be addressed if we put our minds to the task and work together in a productive fashion (i.e. multiple stakeholder approach).

Finally, an approach the acknowledges that positive and productive participation in the problem solving process is the most empowering way we can build a strong future for our children.

The description 'politically correct' is offensive and misleading as the last word implies that the practice of it is for the good…'political corruption' is the proper description for a practice so blatantely evil and racist to one particular ethnic group…us

Ed, you say "when a nation's population slows down you know something is wrong"

Well what is wrong? What things could it be? Could it not merely be people wanting to enjoy life and do not see the need to overpopulate for the sake of it?

And is therefore the only answer to this 'problem' to pretty much indiscriminately welcome the world into your nation? Or put another way, is it really that absurd to question whether or not such a practice is worth it, particularly culturally and environmentally, and particularly because we're sailing into uncharted waters here? Well I can already picture your stock-standard liberal response with the petty insults thrown in, you could probably go find one on any number of message boards and cut and paste it here and save yourself the trouble typing it out. So, rhetorical questions I suppose.

Australia has a small absolute number of immigrants, but a very high "rate" (i.e. in proportion to the population).

"Show me a country with low immigration rates that is doing well".

Qatar, Singapore, Brunei, Hong Kong, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Japan, Taiwan, Israel, South Korea, Bahrain all have GDP per capita similar to white European countries, with virtually no immigration.

More workers are not needed in an economy increasingly mechanised, computerised, automated, roboticised and self-serviced.

Where are the chalkies at the stock exchange, the ladies who connected the phone calls, the car assembly workers? Gone, gone, gone.

Who will pay for the pensions? The roboticised companies making bigger profits due to lower labour costs, that's who!

People have babies when they are optimistic and confident there's a future for them. Little wonder fertility has dropped in the First World.

So it sounds like only losers from the third world are likely to emigrate to the wealthier countries and bring down the richer countries they invade, while relieving their native countries of the burden that is they.

Oh God, not another hate filled leftie calling us pathetic names again. Perhaps SWEETIE here can go live in Africa for a while, see for himself how whites are treated over there, just so he knows what he is supporting over here.

But then he's probably too busy sewing his costume for the next mardi grass

Mike….most leftists are under the delusional theory that ALL cultures are equal, so therefore, those of us that exercise our common sense and can see through that theory and the many problems it has created, must be racist.

APP on social media.

Recent Facebook posts

Error: (#10) To use 'Page Public Content Access', your use of this endpoint must be reviewed and approved by Facebook. To submit this 'Page Public Content Access' feature for review please read our documentation on reviewable features: https://developers.facebook.com/docs/apps/review.Type: OAuthExceptionCode: 10Please refer to our Error Message Reference.

Donate to our fighting fund

If you would like to help support the Protectionist Party with a financial donation please click here.

Download a Membership Form

If you would like to download a PDF version of the Australian Protectionist Party Membership Form, click here.